Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-21488 is a medium-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Color Iccdev. Its CVSS base score is 6.1 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 3th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-21488 is a vulnerability in iccDEV, a set of libraries and tools for working with ICC color management profiles. Versions 2.3.1.1 and below are affected by out-of-bounds read (CWE-125), heap-based buffer overflow (CWE-122), and improper null termination (CWE-170) issues in the CIccTagText::Read function. The vulnerability was published on 2026-01-06 and has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.1 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H).
An attacker with local access can exploit this vulnerability with low complexity and no privileges required, but it necessitates user interaction, such as tricking a user into processing a malicious ICC profile. Successful exploitation could lead to a heap-based buffer overflow causing high availability impact, such as application crashes or denial of service, alongside limited confidentiality impact from the out-of-bounds read.
The issue is addressed in iccDEV version 2.3.1.2. Mitigation involves updating to this patched version, as detailed in the GitHub security advisory (GHSA-4j2g-rvv4-86vg) and the fixing commit (9daaccceb231c43db8cab312ee5bbe9d2aa6b153).
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-1157
Vulnerability Data
iccDEV provides a set of libraries and tools for working with ICC color management profiles. Versions 2.3.1.1 and below are vulnerable to Out-of-bounds Read, Heap-based Buffer Overflow and Improper Null Termination through its CIccTagText::Read function. This issue is fixed in…
more
version 2.3.1.2.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and memory-error detectors) can discover heap overflows after they have been coded.
Input validation enforces bounds checking on data written to heap buffers, directly stopping the overflow condition from being introduced.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can enforce safe string-handling practices that produce correct null termination.
Security engineering principles require use of memory-safe constructs and bounds-checked allocation routines that avoid introducing heap overflows.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability of a heap overflow to execute attacker-controlled code or corrupt adjacent structures.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure-development practices directly require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover heap-overflow flaws but does not prevent their introduction in code.
Timely patching removes known heap-overflow instances after they exist.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect heap overflows before release.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development lifecycle mandates practices that reduce the likelihood of introducing heap overflows.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory APIs that mitigate heap overflows.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safety and input-validation controls that address heap overflows.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe techniques (safe functions, bounds checks) that prevent heap-based buffer overflows.